§

Harmon Auto Glass

18-CA-018134 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 20, 2007)
Harmon Auto Glass

8 Cited authorities

  1. Golden State Bottling Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    414 U.S. 168 (1973)   Cited 497 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Rule 65(d) allows enforcement of orders against successors of enjoined parties

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Burns International Security Services, Inc.

    406 U.S. 272 (1972)   Cited 478 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a successor is not bound to substantive terms of previous collective bargaining agreement

  3. Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.

    351 U.S. 149 (1956)   Cited 223 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith

  4. Lakeland Bus Lines, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    347 F.3d 955 (D.C. Cir. 2003)   Cited 21 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board's "clipped view of the record" did not support its finding that the employer had committed unfair labor practices

  5. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    131 F.3d 1026 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 11 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that agencies are entitled to deviate from reasoning used in prior decisions

  6. Detroit Typographical Union No. 18 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    216 F.3d 109 (D.C. Cir. 2000)   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Granting petition for review because Board conclusion constituted legal error

  7. Peters v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    153 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 1998)   Cited 9 times
    Granting the Board "latitude" in "interpreting its own rules"

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second